wingdingspringking
No bio...
User ID: 1348
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
It's simply a vote against Trump. He's the linchpin holding the Democratic coalition together. Once he's gone, many of us want nothing more to do with the Democratic party.
As for why I'm so against Trump I have a couple of reasons. They basically boil down to a) I like living in a stable society and b) I like living in a rich society.
Stability:
There are really only 2 stable forms of government: Autocracy or aristocracy. We live in an aristocracy. These tend to be the more stable of the two, since there are competing factions with overlapping interests. Because of that, it's hard to enact change without stepping on anyone's toes. So change comes slowly. This allows a lot of institutions to be built on the bedrock of a (somewhat) stable system.
When an aristocracy changes into an autocracy, things usually get ugly. You get a lot of purges, and often a bunch of erratic government behavior. Look at the early Roman empire. For a more modern analogy, look at China. They were briefly an aristocracy with competing factions holding each other in check. Now they're an autocracy with Xi making questionable decisions. Life in China now does not look as good as it did a decade ago. Yes, there are multiple reasons for this. But the change in government structure is certainly one of them.
I think the whole "stolen election" affair moves us a lot closer to autocracy. Mainly by casting doubt on the electoral process, but also by normalizing the use of extra-legal means(fake electors) to hold on to power. To be fair, i don't think Trump will become an autocrat. He's not Julius Caesar. But he might be the Gracchi. Using populism to upend the old order doesn't usually lead to a better system. Instead, you just get chaos.
Wealth:
The US has a large empire. It is largely economic but there is a military component. The US dollar is only the reserve currency because the US is able to project force around the world. When the perception of strength goes, the huge inflows of cash will go too. The more the US leans into isolationism, the faster this will happen. And Trump's refusal to support the provinces/maintain the boarders is really pushing us in that direction.
All that being said, I'm not a big fan of the current culture of the "aristocracy" in the US. I think it's decadent and weak. But I also think that reform from within is possible. I think culturally the pendulum is swinging. Maybe not back to where it was, but certainly away from some of the craziness that we just saw over the last decade. I'd much rather see where that process goes, as opposed to opting for populist chaos.
At the end of the day I'm an institutionalist. I think the institutions in this country took a long time to evolve, and I'm not ready to abandon them, even if some of the people running them are crazed cultists.
wingdingspringking
1mo ago
This hits on two points that I think apply to a lot of online discourse around dating.. The first is that in any competitive environment, playing in a game where the odds are not in your favor is dumb. Anyone with a tiny bit of quantitative background will tell you that playing slots at a casino is a bad idea. In fact, playing anything in a casino unless you have an edge is probably a bad idea. But those same people (assuming they are guys) will get on dating apps and then complain. Dating is a competitive endeavor. Those apps are massively stacked against you unless you are very attractive. So the logical solution is: don't play. Go find other options where you have a competitive edge. Is it fair? No. Why should it be. Is it harder this way? Of course, if it was easy, the app people would be doing it.
Which brings me to my second point. Whenever these conversations come up online, there's always a strong undercurrent of self-pity from a bunch of the people talking. And self-pity is death. I wonder sometimes what evolutionary advantage self pity-ever carried. In any case, it underpins a huge amount of the terminally online world, and is dragging society down with it. But for a guy trying to date, it truly is the mark of the beast. Women will not go near a guy who stinks of self-pity. And the isolation it breeds just serves to reinforce it. It's a painful cycle to break out of, but unless you're ready to curl up and die, there really is no other choice.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
I've heard that argument from the right a lot. And quite frankly, I think it's an attempt to rationalize away the fact that Trump is an exceptionally bad candidate. Will the Democrats come up with reasons why people should vote for them and not the Republicans? Of course, that's what they do. The Republicans do the same thing. Will everyone buy it? No.
This is certainly anecdotal, but the last time i voted for a Democrat at the top of the ticket was Obama. And frankly, were I to have the choice again, I would go with Romney. Not everyone is consistent.
wingdingspringking
4d ago
This hits on an idea I was thinking about recently. In order to genuinely enjoy any sort of fiction, you have to be able to suspend disbelief. Almost all fiction has fantastic, or at least slightly unbelievable elements. While sometimes these are the crux of the work, other times they serve more mundane functions like the simplification of an overly complex plot.
What I've been noticing as I get older is that I'm able to do this less and less. When you consume new media while young, you are able to gloss over inconsistencies with ease. As you age, these become more jarring, eventually making consumption of new plot lines kind of difficult.
In light of this, I find myself wondering if a lot of new shows are as bad as they seem, or if I'm simply unable to overlook their flaws (or inadvertently comparing them to the best-in-genera alternatives)
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
I was referring more to the entire legal process that was attempted. As for the Jan 6th riot, to me that's a non-issue. More of a media circus than anything.
My primary concern is simply that democracy is a lot like the banking system in the sense that it requires everyone to have faith in the system working. Once a sufficient number of people stop having faith in it, it ceases to function. Because of that, I think claims of cheating should be taken quite seriously, but false claims should be treated very harshly.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
If we see a crash on par with the great depression, the 30% of people that normally tune out politics are going to vote. Last time that happened, we got FDR and then leftist politics for 2 generations. This time it will be worse, since social media, if captured, allows for much tighter control over the narrative. Is that really worth the risk?
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
To some extent I'd argue that that's the crux of the entire culture war. The left, via their march through institutions as well as their early control over new media, gained access to a super weapon; the ability to point the whole of society against any individual. Western democracies, influenced by Hobbes, had gone to great lengths to make sure this could not be done without considerable hurdles. But suddenly this super weapon was not only available, but at the beck and call of anyone on the left with a good enough narrative. The only constraint was that it could only be pointed rightward.
So for a decade, we had ever increasing use of this weapon against a large number of people. But more often than not, those who were targeted were the "powerful", that is to say, successful people with something to loose . Anyone caught in the crosshairs was ruined; their career, social life, in some cases even freedom suddenly forfeit. But at the end of the day, those people were still alive. Still part of society. And as you said, I think the experience of having your world ripped away for seemingly no reason is enough to genuinely drive someone mad.
And that's what we're now seeing. A horde of these people, crazed to the point of mayhem, ripping apart the core foundations of society. And the left, like a child who shot their parent in a fit of anger, suddenly waking up to the fact that they destroyed their primary means of protection, and that there is no way to wind back the clock.
And while I think quite a few of us might take some grim satisfaction in that last statement, it doesn't change the fact that we're all on this ship as well. If it goes down, every one of us is going to suffer.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
Cheating in what sense of the word? Influence campaigns? Those have been run by everyone. Intelligence agencies, state actors, private companies, etc. Anyone who has something to gain by one administration winning can try and convince people. That's how the system runs.
But if by cheating you mean what Trump keeps claiming, which is that large numbers of fake ballots are being added to the count, then no, I do not believe it. I would need to see pretty strong evidence to substantiate this claim.
The reason I'm skeptical is because cheating in such a way would require a huge number of people keeping silent. Given that any one of them would stand to gain a lot by defecting, it really seems unlikely that all would keep silent. Contrast this with something like Epstein being killed. Do I think that was a conspiracy? Quite possibly. The number of people involved was small. That would have been much easier to keep under wraps.
wingdingspringking
1mo ago
My initial thought was that it was some form of sexually antagonistic selection. Self-pity in women isn't nearly as detrimental to courtship as it is in men. And it does work really well as a defense mechanism. Given that it isn't terribly important for lower tier males to reproduce from an evolutionary standpoint, having such a defense mechanism that helps women survive at the expense of some men is probably a good tradeoff.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
This seems to be the standard justification for tariffs that I hear. I don't think it's realistic, but then again, I have only a cursory understanding of the subject.
From the numbers I've seen, most western countries have a some small niche industries that they protect, and so they have high tariffs on those. But those niche industries account for a very small percentage of overall trade. Take, for example, the US and Canada (before the current Trump tariffs). Canada puts huge tariffs on US dairy. And the US puts huge tariffs on softwood lumber. But those are only a tiny percentage of total trade. So while there were double digit tariffs in those specific categories, the overall effective tariff rate was very low (1-2%) flowing both ways.
Is that not the case?
wingdingspringking
5mo ago
In light of the stupid Elon hand gesture thing that still won’t die, let me offer a slightly different definition based on something I was just thinking about. A lot of what separates “woke” from run of the mill identity politics and/or ingroup-outgroup bias is the imposition of rules on the outgroup. This is where it takes on a somewhat religious tone ( slogans like “silence is violence” are analogous to the “convert or die” sentiment of the Muslim conquests or early crusades ).
What makes woke particularly insufferable is the rule creation mechanism. It doesn’t come from a canonical text, but rather, it’s an ever growing list of words or actions that were previously done by bad people. Racial slurs? – can’t say those, bad people used them a long time ago. Black facepaint? - can’t use that. Bad people did it a long time ago. Raising your straight arm at an angle above 90 degrees from the resting position? - can’t do that. You guessed it, because bad people did that a long time ago. Hell, you can’t even make the okay sign in some circles anymore because bad people did it on the internet. In addition, the rules are different depending on how “bad” your particular group is seen as being.
So, back to the Elon hand gesture. He’s not allowed to make it apparently. Why? Because it was done by the Nazis. It doesn’t matter that that is barely still in living memory. It doesn’t matter that none of his other actions are particularly Nazi-like. It doesn’t matter that it is a salute that comes naturally to humans and has been practiced by countless groups over the millennia. No, the gesture is verboten, now and forever. And unless you are constantly policing your actions and keeping up with the latest blacklists, you too will at some point do something that will mark you as an apostate.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
No, an autocracy requires an autocrat. The democrats are most definitely an aristocracy. They have different factions that vie for power and influence. Also, all of those things you mentioned are within the realm of legal possibility. Do I support them? No. Are they legally tenable within the US framework of government with enough votes? Yes. Gerrymandering is perhaps the best example of this. And both sides do it.
In contrast, acting to subvert faith in/circumvent the legal means of transferring power is not only breaking the rules of the system, it threatens to undermine the whole thing.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
"Should" in what sense of the word? In an ideal world? Sure. In actuality, organizations act in their own interest. This is true for state agencies, private organizations, sovereign states, etc.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
Agreed. On economics I'm quite conservative in the traditional, Chesterton's fence sense of the word. Re-routing the irrigation ditches with a nuclear explosion and still expecting the crops to get watered is a very risky bet.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
I mean, I agree on a bunch of the points about why the establishment has lost credibility in terms of protecting domestic manufacturing interests. In my view, letting China into the WTO was the single largest political blunder of the last 50 years. But that doesn't change the fact that mathematically an overall effective tariff rate should be relatively straight forward to calculate. TOTAL_TARIFFS_PAID / TOTAL_VALUE_OF_GOODS doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. I suppose you could always add other taxes onto the goods once they've entered the market and not charge them at the border, but that wouldn't exactly be subtle or easy to cover up.
wingdingspringking
4mo ago
They won't fight back without power for the same reason that they wouldn't fight when they had power. "They" (the former establishment) are a bloated, hollowed out husk. They lack the ability or the consensus to take decisive action. I say this as someone that would have partially preferred that they stayed in power just for the stability it would have provided (Trump's actions will have huge unforeseen consequences - both positive and negative, even his most ardent supporters have to admit this). A competent "They" would have thrown the full power of the state against Trump the second he lost power the first time. Either that or used media manipulation to turn the page on him. In the end, they lacked the resolve to do either. They waited until it was clear he wasn't going away on his own, then launched a last minute, poorly orchestrated series of legal assaults that did little more than boost his popularity. Things that are too weak to defend themselves die. That's the way of the world.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
If violence is being used to prevent voting, I really doubt anything we are saying matters. At that point we are inches away from armed civil conflict.
wingdingspringking
2mo ago
The scary thing is it's not limited to individuals, or even just current events. You'd think history would be a little more dispassionate, but unfortunately that isn't the case.
Here's the example that really made me realize the extent of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache
While there are sections in there about the Apache wars with the US, there is absolutely nothing about the fact that they were almost eradicated by the Comanche. In fact, it barely even mentions the Comanche at all. That would be like discussing small pox and barely even mentioning the vaccine while going into great depth on its decline during the 20th century.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
To be fair, I'm strongly against changing the Supreme Court. The difference there is that the Democrats are still working within the framework of government that exists. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint justices, and there is no cap to the number. Would it be a break with tradition to pack the court? Yes. Would i support an amendment capping the number of justices? Also yes. But the fact remains that everything being done is following a precedent that has existed for quite some time. Partisan justices are nothing new. Even threats of court packing are nothing new (FDR).
When you start acting outside of the institutional framework, you get into really dangerous territory, especially with respect to elections. The threat of escalation is high. If one side does something, the other side will do it too. I really don't want to see every election being questioned by the loosing side. If that happens, it's only a matter of time before we get real political violence.
That's not exactly a good faith interpretation, but I'll answer it anyway. 12 years ago I didn't have sufficient experience with the world to realize that human nature makes utopias impossible. I think that's the fundamental fallacy of the left. And I think that as people get older (assuming they are willing to consider new viewpoints), they tend to accept that. Hence the old adage about people becoming more conservative as they age.
So no. I didn't care about "binders-full-of-women". I believed at the time what I had been taught that leftist policies could make the world better. I no longer believe that. That being said, I would like to hold on to some of what we currently have in terms of a society. And subverting faith in democracy is one of the fastest ways to lose that.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
I hear a lot of people say that. It seems like a pretty big assumption. There are a lot of things that can happen over the next 4 years.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
You are essentially saying that mass disruptions to the economy come only from deflation. In my view, that's a bit of a presumptuous statement to make about a system so large that no human being can really conceive of it in its entirety.
I'm certainly not arguing that I know that tariffs of this scale will collapse the system. What I am arguing is that making rapid changes of that scale has the capacity to cause large, unforeseen consequences. And that such consequences may not be easily reversible. From a political calculus standpoint, it's a very dangerous move.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
It's easier to understand when you take into consideration that our current political environment is following closely on the heels of a full blown moral panic. Given the scale and scope of the moral panic, a lot of previous cultural assumptions can no longer be taken for granted.
I don't think the left has fully grasped this yet. So a lot of things that they previously assumed to be true, ideas like "They're just kids protesting, society will give them leeway", or "Making people feel uncomfortable for the sake of X disadvantaged group is likely to be met with nuanced consideration." are suddenly no longer valid. I think once this paradigm shift has been internalized, the bulk of the left leaning groups will chart a new course. Either that or fade into irrelevancy.
wingdingspringking
10mo ago
Sure, there are some dirty tactics used with absentee ballots. I'm actually all for election security reform. I have no problem with voter ID requirements.
My problem is that the more grandiose claims of election interference are a lot harder to believe. Claims that the election was stolen by fake ballots being added to the count. Claims that dead people were voting in sufficient numbers to swing the election. I've never seen anything that supports these claims with sufficient evidence to be convincing.
As for the "gains", well, if you had evidence of a conspiracy to overturn a US Presidential election, that evidence could be used to get you almost anything you could want. Huge amounts of money, either from the right or from foreign powers. National fame. Or maybe just assuaging your own guilt. If you had thousands of people involved in something like this, you don't think a single one of them would defect?
I’m probably not a good representative of Harris backers, but I’m definitely way more enthusiastic about her than I was about Biden. I’d say this boils down to the fact that she has a decent chance of winning if polls are to be believed. Going from certain defeat to having a fighting chance is invigorating. Something akin to a last minute touchdown that ties up a game. All of this is in spite of the fact that I find the majority of her policy positions abhorrent.
More options
Context Copy link